» Articles » PMID: 28115800

A 3 year Minimum Follow Up of Endoprosthetic Replacement for Distal Femoral Fractures - An Alternative Treatment Option

Overview
Journal J Orthop
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2017 Jan 25
PMID 28115800
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Although the use of an endoprosthesis for distal femoral fractures remains a valid treatment option the widespread use is in its infancy.

Methodology: In this retrospective case series, we review cases of distal femoral fracture treated with endoprosthetic replacement (EPR). The outcomes we assessed were the time to start mobilising, the time to discharge, morbidity and mortality as well as an Oxford knee score to assess pain and function and also the early survivorship. 6 of the 11 from the cohort had existing Total Knee Replacements (TKRs) in situ.

Results: There were 11 knees in our cohort with a mean age of 81.5 years (range 52-102 years). The median time to follow up was 3.5 years (range 1.6 to 5.5 years). The median times to theatre was 3 days and to discharge was 16 days. Oxford functional and pain scores were 32/48.

Discussion: In the appropriate patient and fracture pattern, Endoprosthetic knee replacement is an excellent option in the treatment of distal femoral fractures whether associated with an existing TKR or not. The implant is more costly than traditional open reduction and internal fixation, but the earlier return to full mobility post-operatively may save on hospital/care home stay and free up hospital space and minimise complications.

Citing Articles

Management of Distal Femur Fractures: Replacement Versus Surgical Fixation Versus Conservative Management.

Routledge J, Bashir O, Elbeshbeshy M, Saber A, Aqil A Cureus. 2023; 15(9):e45333.

PMID: 37849599 PMC: 10577514. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.45333.


Megaprosthesis in Non-Oncologic Settings-A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Sambri A, Parisi S, Zunarelli R, Di Prinzio L, Morante L, Lonardo G J Clin Med. 2023; 12(12).

PMID: 37373844 PMC: 10299121. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12124151.


Knee function, quality of life, pain, and living conditions after distal femoral resection knee arthroplasty for non-tumor indications.

Corap Y, Brix M, Brandt J, Emmeluth C, Lindberg-Larsen M BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023; 24(1):9.

PMID: 36609249 PMC: 9817378. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-06104-z.


Patient safety in distal femoral resection knee arthroplasty for non-tumor indications: a single-center consecutive cohort study of 45 patients.

Corap Y, Brix M, Emmeluth C, Lindberg-Larsen M BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022; 23(1):199.

PMID: 35241040 PMC: 8892708. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05100-7.


Survivorship, complications, and outcomes following distal femoral arthroplasty for non-neoplastic indications.

Sobol K, Fram B, Strony J, Brown S Bone Jt Open. 2022; 3(3):173-181.

PMID: 35227074 PMC: 8965790. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.33.BJO-2021-0202.R1.


References
1.
Murray D, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard D, Carr A . The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89(8):1010-4. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424. View

2.
Hou Z, Bowen T, Irgit K, Strohecker K, Matzko M, Widmaier J . Locked plating of periprosthetic femur fractures above total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma. 2012; 26(7):427-32. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31822c050b. View

3.
Gudnason A, Milbrink J, Hailer N . Implant survival and outcome after rotating-hinge total knee revision arthroplasty: a minimum 6-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011; 131(11):1601-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-011-1330-5. View

4.
Rorabeck C, Taylor J . Classification of periprosthetic fractures complicating total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999; 30(2):209-14. DOI: 10.1016/s0030-5898(05)70075-4. View

5.
Helfet D, Lorich D . Retrograde intramedullary nailing of supracondylar femoral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; (350):80-4. View